[Pythonmac-SIG] Regarding universal python framework....

[Bob Ippolito]

On 1/30/07, Christopher Barker <Chris.Barker at noaa.gov> wrote:
>
> Thanks Bob,
>
> We can always count on you for having useful ideas about all sorts of stuff.
>
> It does sound like a quad binary wouldn't be a good idea.
>
> > For intel it's probably a bit different because there's more registers
> > and whatnot in 64-bit mode... so it may actually be an overall
> > performance win for machines that can do it.
> >
> > I think all Core 2 Duo machines are x86-64 capable.
>
> Isn't that all Intel Macs?

No. The first few revisions were Core Duo, not Core 2 Duo. The MacBook
Pro I have definitely isn't 64-bit or 802.11n...

> > The problem with a quad binary build is that there's a lot more
> > difference between 32-bit and 64-bit than there is from PPC and Intel.
>
> Wow! that's a surprise to me. I suppose there are a LOT of 32 bit
> assumptions built into  a lot of code.

It's not so much that there are 32-bit assumptions but that there are
checks that do different things between 32-bit and 64-bit code, and if
that check is done during configure or setup.py then it's not
compatible with the way that universal binaries are typically built.

> > It would be a lot of work to make that happen. It would also end up in
> > pain because I believe that a 64-bit machine would default to using
> > the 64-bit version of the executable which wouldn't be compatible with
> > any existing extensions.
>
> Would setup.py build Universal extensions right (if the extension was
> written to support 64 bit)?

Sure. Distutils builds things the same way that Python was built
unless you tell it otherwise.

> > It would make a lot of sense to have a 64-bit python distribution that
> > was built for x86-64 and ppc64...
>
> Hmm. I like that idea. Now we just need a bunch of people to find the
> time.....

Good luck :) Personally I have neither the time, need, or the (intel) hardware.

-bob